Re: Are escrow deposit files per-TLD, or per-registry operator?

On 6/18/13 1:42 PM, Seth Goldman wrote:
> In the case of a registry operator who operates multiple TLDs in a
> single database, are the escrow deposit files intended to be per-TLD?
> Or per-registry operator?
> 
> My suspicion is that it should be the latter. The entire reason for
> the escrow deposit to exist is to transition to an EBERO in the event
> that a registry operator is unable to perform its duties. That could
> happen on a per-TLD basis, but it would be a lot more efficient to do
> it for *all* TLDs that are managed by that registry operator.
> 
> So if that is the case, what are we to make of the escrow deposit file
> naming convention?
> 

While sensible, at no point during the multi-year struggle to impart
sense into the DAG was any argument for any means of recognizing two
or more applications "communicated" (had same applicants, used same
backends, liked the same wine, ...) successful.

I wouldn't gamble that escrow can be "bundled" or that any other
operational activity that exists in contractual form can be, from
insurance to continuity instrument to ... failover flavor preference.

Failure is a property of the registry operator, which in our refined
parlance means the two or three clowns who managed to get a piece of
paper past ICANN legal, who may run out of money or be found to be
sudden guests of the United States (my favorite form of incapacity,
see the Brothers Elashi and the .iq saga, at a google near you), or
encounter some other trigger condition.

YMMV, of course.
Eric
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg